Patterns on the Yellow Brick Road - 2 Parties at War?

The contention between our two major political parties is gnawing at the nation's nerves. Politics doesn't have to get ugly and political parties need not become enemies. Unfortunately, they usually do. That's one of life's mean little tricks.

The Founders intended that there be no political parties to create mischief and mayhem on the national scene. The electoral college was to save us from that. Selected individuals from each state searched the country for people they deemed to be presidential material. If their combined efforts produced a majority candidate, the search was over. If not, the Senate and House voted on the spot to fill the two executive slots from the list of nominees. That was it--no campaigning, vitriolic verbiage, roadside signs, or flagrant finances.

Though innovative and practical, it lasted but a political heartbeat on the national scene, thanks to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These devoted patriots each feared a different Apocalypse on the distant scene. Adams wanted a strong federal government to restrain unruly states who could swallow the federal government. Jefferson wanted strong states so a voracious national government could not render states helpless. Either could have been right, but not both. History went with Jefferson. In the aftermath, the electoral college waned, political parties drew breath, and here we are.
President Washington warned us. This great man, who could have made himself king or stayed on as president forever, left office after two terms to set a pattern for those who followed. He steered the country through its tumultuous original era and knew, better than anyone alive, the potential for power grabs inherent in a constitutional republic. He cautioned, "Let me ... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. They serve to ... put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party (rather than) ... consistent and wholesome plans ...(for) mutual interests." This, then is the great folly of parties: they come to care more for their own power than for the wellbeing of the citizens.

What a travesty! Our Founders had given their lives, liberties and fortunes for American preeminence. When Gouvernor Morris of Pennsylvania inked the notes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention into a workable document, he penned these words, "We the People .. in order to form a more perfect Union ... insure domestic Tranquility ... (and) promote the general Welfare."
Look at our national political scene. Does anyone see domestic tranquility? How about general welfare, or a more perfect union? All three are Missing In Action in the current political wars. Parties fight each other and dissenters within their ranks. The war is about which party wins, not about giving the American people what they inherited, what they want, and what they repeatedly ask for. The whole political scene is a battleground.

The nation could take a page from the handbook of Utah's non-partisan local politics. Skip the Republican/Democrat thing; local politicians say there's a better way. Gary Garrett, of the Provo City Council, says the workability of the political atmosphere is enjoyable; that it fosters a greater spirit of cooperation to benefit the people of his city. Sharon Price Anderson, candidate for Orem City Council, believes divisions in local politics are more a matter of mindset than political persuasion. While most in Utah are Republicans by registration, there's diversity in the philosophy and practice of government. That variety gives choices. It's not Shangri-la, but politics works better at the local level.
We can see the problems at the national level and appreciate the pattern of more peaceful self-governance set locally. The quandary is this: how do we bridge the gap between local and national? It's not a waltz down the yellow brick road, but the pattern of local Utah politics is a start.

Pamela's new Ebook, "Promises of the Constitution:"
http://smile.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1410824095&sr=1-1&keywords=promises+of+the+constitution  

Openshaw: Article Five convention: Con-Con A bad idea

In the ever-changing, never peaceful world of politics and government, some things move us forward and some buckle our knees. It's not always obvious which is which. One currently popular movement of interest in Utah is potentially disastrous -- the call for a Constitutional Convention of the States, named the Con-Con, or Article 5 Convention.

Article 5 of the U. S. Constitution provides for its amendment to allow changes to government without chaos and revolution. Two amendment methods are given. In the first, used for all 27 current amendments, Congress carries out the amendment process. In the second, two-thirds of state legislatures require Congress to call a convention to propose an amendment. Both methods then require ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The second method has never been used to amend the Constitution, so no pattern exists to carry out such a convention. Any formula to do so would be created and conducted by our current leaders, many of whom do not value inalienable rights, limited government and our original virtues of faith in God, integrity and high moral standards.
While our 1787 leaders had advanced knowledge from the masters of political thought, today's leaders do not. Our original Founders wanted the common good -- liberty through limited government and individual rights. The pattern they followed to create government reflected those values. Are we confident that today's leaders can be trusted to share that unselfish goal?
In addition, there is doubt that fair rules would prevail during a Con-Con. A parallel can be drawn with the White House Conference on Families (WHCF), conducted by the Carter administration in 1980. It was touted as a venue for ordinary people to tell government how to help families. As an elected delegate from Nebraska, the WHCF experience destroyed my trust in the integrity of government and public policy.
Contrary to the rules, the conference was front-loaded with progressive government appointees who came to demand more government. During the two days of group workshops, the overwhelming consensus from the small group sessions was "Government, leave us alone!"
On the final day, when results were to be tabulated, a surprise last-minute rule change by the progressives who conducted the conference left conservative directives on the cutting room floor. We were helpless; our cries of outrage were ignored. With the changes, liberal, rather than conservative mandates arose from the conference.
It would be relatively simple for those intent on "fundamental transformation" to similarly subvert the rules at an Article 5 Convention. Con-Con advocates say rules would prevent a progressive takeover. There were rules at the WHCF; they were as toothpicks before a flood.

There is talk among foes of the Constitution to replace our founding document during such a convention and replacement drafts exist; I have one in my possession. It is a cancellation of individual liberties.

Con-Con advocates believe new laws will stop the current wholesale destruction of our governing system. Their beliefs appear naive; if the present constitutional law is ignored or changed at will, there is little reason to believe new laws would be treated any differently. Author and constitutional scholar Scott Bradley, in "The Epidemic of Calls to Modify the United States Constitution," declares that we do not need new laws. Our original Constitution provided sound government. If we follow it, most of the proposed amendments are unnecessary.
Today we stand amid the Founders' worst fears for America -- lawless federal government, whose leaders espouse federal control of private enterprise through regulation and bailouts, redistribution of wealth, massive bureaucratic government, and the making of laws by those with no authority to do so.
Those who perpetrate these unconstitutional actions would preside at a Con-Con and draft its policies. Any system they created would take away freedom, not protect it.
Utah has voted against an Article 5 Convention in past. Nothing has changed. Our efforts should be directed to the original Constitution's protection, not to situations that might dismantle it. We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the laws we have. The 1787 document that gave us unparalleled freedom, protection and prosperity is enough. Little more is needed; nothing less will suffice.

No One Likes the Election Compromise

With Count My Vote determined to replace the caucuses, and the caucuses determined to preserve their grass-roots voice, a "principled" compromise, S.B. 54, claims to be the answer. Some prominent politicians are ready to "lay down on the railroad tracks" for the change. Believers in grass-roots government ask why Utah is spending time and money to replace a successful system.

The one constant in this issue is that no one likes the compromise, including legislators rethinking earlier support. Why do it, then? We are fixing the wrong problem, like a doctor who removes a facial mole to solve an itching toe. The real solution, more people involved, does not automatically demand a system change.

The compromise requires political parties to "qualify" or else they get Count My Vote -- political primaries -- by default. Qualification, under the current S.B. 54, requires three things: the choice of either absentee ballots or alternate delegates; greater ease for participation in primaries by unaffiliated voters; and an alternate path for candidates -- a petition approach to the ballot. Other earlier requirements have been dropped. Once qualified, the parties choose how to meet the criteria imposed by the state.

Conservatives fear the compromise for many reasons. Some of those pushing it were Count My Vote advocates not long ago, so conservatives fear the two may be "in bed together" to influence state politics. The system can be skewed by party outsiders to manipulate party elections through a process called controlled opposition--non-party members could load a caucus, multiply candidates, vote for the weakest to split the vote and take over.

One conservative says the compromise "is like putting the caucus system on life support" -- not a good way to live. Others see problems in setting a precedent for state government to control political parties, although proponents declare that state funding of the primaries permits some state control.
Opponents take offense at Count My Vote's unethical methods, used to gather signatures so CMV can appear on the 2014 ballot as a citizens' initiative. Mounting solid evidence shows repeated deception at petition collection sites. This taints the entire process.
With the constitutional issues concerning state control of political parties, and with the implications of dishonesty in the citizens' initiative, court cases are inevitable; indeed, to not bring them would be irresponsible. If this issue moves forward, it will cost Utah taxpayers serious money in court before it is done.
There is an uncomfortable feeling about this entire issue of "hurry, hurry." Good politics are not borne of speed and ignorant voters. The business of a constitutional republic is deliberately slow, to prevent errors and promote education of the people, who are the source of law. Government by the people is based on their understanding of the topic at hand. That education hasn't happened.
There has been far too little open discussion on this topic. When rushed, a policy change should be viewed with suspicion. Good policies survive scrutiny and dialogue, while coercion seeks to suppress public dialogue.

This issue is going too fast and it would be better to slow it down. The patient is being rushed into surgery without a finished diagnosis or a qualified treatment. It's important that we do the right thing, not the fast thing. Let's back off this issue for another year and find answers to the real problems, rather than throwing out the caucuses because "somebody said" that will fix the patient. Ice the compromise, spank CMV and send them to time out for their dishonesty. Go to work on the real problem, keep the public informed and involved, and if changes really are necessary, get it right for the 2016 elections.
In the meantime, Utah, show up at the caucuses next week and solve the real problem. The caucuses are not flawless, but Winston Churchill's remarks on democracy also apply here: "The worst form of government except for all those others... ." Keep the caucuses. Show up next week and make a difference.